閱讀上一篇提及的上訴庭判辭, 勾起我的回憶, 我去年批評高院法官Campbell-Moffat有關庭上認人的錯誤法律看法, 我去年寫了這一篇: 庭上認錯人
。昨晚飯聚, 才知道原來大法官是 Archbold Hong Kong 有關 Identification 章節的編輯, 有點失覺, 那她就錯得無理了。凑巧在MS一案, 在審訊非禮案的過程中, MS尋鸒滋事, 無端爭論起認人的證據, 反對受害人在庭上認人, 而原審裁判官因此裁定因為審訊前沒有安排過認人手續(ID Parade), 所以不准受害人在庭上認人。這裁決可能受到Campbell-Moffat 在 HKSAR and CHEUNG WEN PO PHILIP (張文波)
HCMA 58/2016 的判決所影響, 被誤導而錯判了。上訴庭在MS一案, 也指出原審裁判官不准受害人在庭上認人是錯誤的判決, 無形中顯示 Campbell-Moffat 的看法是錯誤的, 下面這兩段判辭就清楚不過。
199. MS explained his position when directly asked by the magistrate if identity was in issue, as follows:
“Well, I think all I would say is if I may put it this way is that whether or not identity is in issue, the prosecution must prove their case, and they have to lay a sufficient foundation to enable a dock ID to be made, in any event. That’s all I would say. And, so far, I don’t believe that’s been done.”
Ultimately, having heard argument, the magistrate disallowed a dock identification, saying that a proper identification parade should have been held.
200. With respect to the magistrate, his ruling was wrong. In circumstances where the parties had met outside House 2, on which occasion PW1 had, in the presence of cinema personnel, accused the appellant of indecently assaulting her, for which he had tried to explain and apologise, following which the police had arrived and arrested the defendant, as a result of which both proceeded to the police station, a formal identification parade would have been a futile exercise. No one ever suggested that the man who came out of the cinema, who was accused by PW1 of indecent assault and who was subsequently arrested in the presence of witnesses, was not the defendant, nor was that ever the defence. A dock identification should have been permitted.